|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 12:15:52 GMT -5
The judge didn't. He sanctioned attacks directed at certain people who are part of the court and their family members. It is to ensure a fair trial. It is done all the time and it is constitutional. Trump can talk about anything else he wants. Did it go to the Supreme Court to see if it's Constitutional are you just adding that in for kicks? Not this case yet, but others have. It doesn't need SCOTUS to be constitutional. Any court ruling on the matter makes it constitutional, until the court is overruled, as they are all part of the judicial branch. SCOTUS is just the highest court in the land. SCOTUS has decided not to hear some cases and let lower court rulings make the decision of constitutionality. Haven't you guys read the constitution?
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 12:21:37 GMT -5
trump is a psychopath, he talks about what his little pea brain tells him too...he has absolutely no control over his illness. Pretty much something he should have learned by the time he was 7. So why do you care? Why should a judge care? Seems like that would add credence to their "case". IF courts operate on the presumption of innocence why would any sanctions be allowed? For the umpteenth time, they are allowed to protect the integrity of the trial and ensure the defendant gets a fair and unbiased trial. Trump's remarks could make some potential jurors not like him for insulting a judge's daughter. That is why the courts have determined that sanctions against discussing certain aspects of a trial is constitutional. It is to protect the defendant, jurors, and witnesses in a trial.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 12:22:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 12:26:02 GMT -5
Boy is that a load of crap. You beat me to it. Gag orders are there to protect the prosecution when they know they have a weak case. How does stopping Trump from insulting the Judge, jurors, potential witnesses, and their family members protect the prosecutions case? Trump can talk about the charges all he wants and make any claim about the charges he wishes. He just can't insult people. i think it demonstrates Trump's defense is weak since all he can do is attack people and not the merits of the case. If his defense was solid, why would he need to attack the individuals or bring their family into the discussion. He would simply attacks the prosecutor's evidence and demonstrate why it is false. But he can't.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Mar 29, 2024 12:45:56 GMT -5
So why do you care? Why should a judge care? Seems like that would add credence to their "case". IF courts operate on the presumption of innocence why would any sanctions be allowed? For the umpteenth time, they are allowed to protect the integrity of the trial and ensure the defendant gets a fair and unbiased trial. Do judges call for a complete media blackout also? After all we are talking about integrity
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 12:57:00 GMT -5
For the umpteenth time, they are allowed to protect the integrity of the trial and ensure the defendant gets a fair and unbiased trial. Do judges call for a complete media blackout also? After all we are talking about integrity That is covered under federal court rules. The judge has to rule to allow it, not rule to stop it. The standard is for no broadcasting of trials, but the judge can decide to allow it in some cases. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Mar 29, 2024 13:19:51 GMT -5
Do judges call for a complete media blackout also? After all we are talking about integrity That is covered under federal court rules. The judge has to rule to allow it, not rule to stop it. The standard is for no broadcasting of trials, but the judge can decide to allow it in some cases. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."Photography is not a constitutional right. We're talking about speech, at least I thought we were. Gag orders are all about narrative control. Holding a defendant in contempt for publicy addressing their case is bullshit. Regardless of who you vote for. IF a judge was concerned about fairness and integrity they would gag all outlets.
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on Mar 29, 2024 13:47:56 GMT -5
Exactly like that. I guess that makes it okay in your mind. Some leftists act like fucking jerks so I approve of rightists acting the same way. Why don't you explain that to your daughter when it happens to her. Being a fucking jerk isn't right or left. It's just being a fucking jerk. Wrong is wrong no matter what side or individual does it. Both sides are brainwashed IMO One day the two sides won't be in control. Slowly but surely people are coming to their senses that the two party system majority is what's wrong with America. Party's come and go. The fact these two have been around as long as they have is impressive honestly. Usually they get in power and in a generation or two they have lost touch with their base to the point they just die out. It's passed time for them to die. But when the two parties control all the money and the mouthpiece its hard for the upstarts or smaller parties to get a voice in the cacophony parade of partispartisanship that is politics today. I don't believe anybody can really say they feel represented today. And if they can I would be terrified of them
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Mar 29, 2024 13:57:34 GMT -5
You beat me to it. Gag orders are there to protect the prosecution when they know they have a weak case. How does stopping Trump from insulting the Judge, jurors, potential witnesses, and their family members protect the prosecutions case? Trump can talk about the charges all he wants and make any claim about the charges he wishes. He just can't insult people. i think it demonstrates Trump's defense is weak since all he can do is attack people and not the merits of the case. If his defense was solid, why would he need to attack the individuals or bring their family into the discussion. He would simply attacks the prosecutor's evidence and demonstrate why it is false. But he can't. You keep saying he is insulting them? How? By saying that it is a kangaroo court? Or a political witch-hunt? When it is? That the DA is pulling a political stunt which she admits? Not to mention the judge is a publicity whore which everyone knows he is. I hope Trump continues to put them down because more people are waking up to the corruption that this country is full of.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 29, 2024 14:51:59 GMT -5
That is covered under federal court rules. The judge has to rule to allow it, not rule to stop it. The standard is for no broadcasting of trials, but the judge can decide to allow it in some cases. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."Photography is not a constitutional right. We're talking about speech, at least I thought we were. Gag orders are all about narrative control. Holding a defendant in contempt for publicy addressing their case is bullshit. Regardless of who you vote for. IF a judge was concerned about fairness and integrity they would gag all outlets. First off, photography is a constitutional right. It is part of your first amendment rights under freedom of the press. It is why paparazzi and assholes on the internet exist. Second, you made the comment about judges calling for a media blackout. Since the media reports the daily activities of every Trump case, I thought you meant they weren't allowing reporters with video equipment inside the courtroom. As far as I know reporters have not been banned from the courtroom. That kind of ban would likely not stand up under appeal, freedom of the press and such. Gag orders, as the courts have ruled many many times, are to protect the integrity of the trial. It is why judges rarely use them and they get appealed so often. To be sure the reason is not to control the narrative. Gag orders, as in the Trump case, have to be specific and have objective reasoning behind them, as they do in the Trump case. No judge is holding a defendant in contempt for publicly addressing their case is bullshit. Trump can say the case is bullshit all he wants. What he can not do is insult, demean, or threaten the judge, prosecutor, jurors, witnesses, court staff, or their families. That is the only thing he can not do. He can rant about the charges and the evidence all he wants. You do not seem to understand the limited scope of the gag order. If the judge had said Trump could not talk about the case at all, he would have violated Trump's rights and an appeals court would overturn it. But the judge did NOT do that. He simply ordered that Trump can NOT insult, demean, or threaten the judge, prosecutor, jurors, witnesses, court staff, or their families.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Mar 29, 2024 15:02:04 GMT -5
Back to the OP. Trump wants to be locked up.
Then he can say, " If they can do it to me, they can do it to you."
He would consider a picture of him behind bars priceless in convincing his sycophants they are victims too.
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on Mar 29, 2024 15:03:49 GMT -5
Back to the OP. Trump wants to be locked up. Then he can say, " If they can do it to me, they can do it to you." He would consider a picture of him behind bars priceless in convincing his sycophants they are victims too. He said it helps him with the black vote too
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 29, 2024 16:28:51 GMT -5
Back to the OP. Trump wants to be locked up. Then he can say, " If they can do it to me, they can do it to you." He would consider a picture of him behind bars priceless in convincing his sycophants they are victims too. He said it helps him with the black vote too what do you mean,, explain.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 29, 2024 16:32:56 GMT -5
He said it helps him with the black vote too what do you mean,, explain. Pretty self explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 29, 2024 16:37:24 GMT -5
Simply put Trump and his supporters want political violence and are doing all they can to ensure that somebody gets hurt.
Why else would Trump post an image of Biden bound in the back of a truck? I guess he's joking, or needs more context, or is misunderstood.
He and they are nothing but stochastic terrorists praying on that Trump Bible for blood. So a particular foot stomping member can save his faux indignation for someone that gives a shit.
|
|